User talk:DrFleischman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#false_allegations_of_edit_warring_.2F_editing_against_consensus[edit]

When all you have to say in reply to my observations about the state of consensus is that you "disagree," it looks to me like you've declined to continue to engage. You continue to refuse to given Trappedinburnley and FoCuSandLeArN even that much of a reply. I think going to the BLP noticeboard helped resolve the issue in that independent opinion was unanimous that the Sunday Times may be cited, and by independent I mean excluding Petrarchan who has been a party to almost every dispute concerning the page since it was created. I believe you have twisted Nomoskedasticity's view if you think Nomoskedasticity agrees with you concerning no citing of the Sunday Times even with attribution. Given that you haven't declined to continue to revert, I see little prospect that any further progress will be made here towards the resolving the issue short of soliciting admin involvement. Admins do not generally adjudicate content disputes, but I think the content dispute may be indirectly addressed by having your repeated accusation that that I am edit warring and editing against consensus truth tested.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the fact that you declined to substantiate your accusations of edit warring in the forum for dealing with such accusations is presumptive evidence that your accusations were made in bad faith. I would think that not only would you welcome being held accountable for your accusations were they made in good faith, you would be encouraging admin attention in order to put a stop to the edit warring instead of trying to wave such attention away. If your allegations are being made in good faith then prove it by asking a third party to review your allegations. You can start with an admin who agrees with you that it is entirely unreasonable and unsportsmanlike of me to expect you to "respond point-for-point" to me. As for your "edit wars can be slow-moving" line, there certainly hasn't been anything slow about the pace at which you have been reverting others such that I trust you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to complain that someone was as fast to revert as you are.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think there is a consensus in your favor, the appropriate way to resolve the dispute is to go to WP:ANRFC as I already suggested. Anything else is disruptive at this point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
What's disruptive is 1) your attempt to wave off the admin intervention I solicited 2) misrepresenting the consensus by reverting another editor and then refusing to acknowledge that editor as wanting to include the material you deleted 3) choosing to edit war (with repeated wholesale deletions of the exact same text with the exact same edit summary) instead of responding to my Talk page argument, complaining that it's unreasonable to be expected to "respond point-for-point" 4) refusing to respond to other editors who disagree with you 5) continuing to claim a BLP violation despite the fact that the matter was already raised on the BLP noticeboard and you couldn't get consensus support for that contention despite the fact you were free to present only one side of the argument.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Not constructive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I want it on record here that I hereby challenge you to raise this on the RS noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war. And include your "BLP violation" claim if you are not going to drop it so it can be assessed by the community. In order to help you make the best argument you can, I'm going to tip you off with a possible line of counterargument, so you can tailor now what you post in anticipation of it:
If this is a good faith objection to the reliability of the messenger as opposed to the message, then why don't you object to citing the New York Times as "a BLP violation" when the NYT cited anonymous officials to report that Snowden was enabling ISIS? Unlike the Sunday Times, the NYT didn't have the benefit of having the BBC back it up by independently contacting its own anonymous officials (BBC sources) and getting the same story! It's not a BLP violation to suggest someone enabled ISIS but it is to suggest someone enabled Russian intelligence? Greenwald attacked the NYT just like he attacked the Sunday Times (and just like he attacked Reuters and Kommersant, in the later case with subsequent evidence contradicting Greenwald's "fabrication" charge). As for your quotefarm, I think you are passing off a lot of opinion pieces by individuals as investigative reporting that contradicted the Sunday Times. I would like to note here that the edit which DrFleischman has been edit warring over to delete is "British government officials briefing anonymously claimed that..." *What follows this attributed "claimed that" does not have to be verified, it's the whole sentence to which verifiability applies.*--Brian Dell (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

This extended dispute (citing the Sunday Times) kicked off with you deleting material added by Trödel's without giving Trödel a Talk page explanation. You subsequently refused to acknowledge Trödel when making your claims about the state of the consensus, yet as of today an admin has has come in and added material that is remarkably similar in theme and intention to Trödel's edit. The original edit has most certainly been improved upon (which I'll grant does not always happen with every admin move like this), but it seems to me that an inordinate amount of WIkipedian resources were consumed in this affair relative to the difference between Trödel's edit and what we have now. I think there's more to be reflected upon here than just that you've managed to come out of this with your clean edit warring block log intact.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, reflect away. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
If you think the party that needs to reflect on what all his edit warring accomplished is someone other than yourself, it looks to me like you are resolved to repeat your disruptive behaviour in the future even if it leads to the same result. I've tried to make escalation a last resort, as it's one thing to waste my time and another thing to waste the time of the rest of the community as well. But it appears that admin action is the only thing you respect. A productive and collaborative citizen does not deem himself entitled to do anything and everything that formal enforcement does not punish him for. It should not be necessary for an admin to instruct you as to what either policy or community opinion is.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I consider your prolonged discussion of this subject to be harassment. You are banned from my talk page for the month of August 2015. I will seek administrative sanctions if you post any comments here this month aside from mandatory notifications. The userspace ban will automatically expire at the end of the month. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC, I'm considering filing this ANI[edit]

I'm considering posting this ANI relating to the conduct of HughD. As I link to some of your posts I would be interested in your views. [[2]] Springee (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I support you. This is a good start but it needs quite a bit more work. Here are some miscellaneous thoughts:
  • Way too long. You need to cut this down by at least 2/3. Length is your enemy because it causes those tired admin eyes to glaze over. Use bullets, bolding, and {{collapse}} to keep it short and draw attention to the most important points.
  • Don't focus so exclusively on the RfC. That makes it easy to explain away as an isolated incident. His problem go far beyond the RfC. You'll find the same problematic behavior at other related articles.
  • Cut the stuff about past history. Admins don't care. They want to know about recent problems. That means June at the earliest. Unless you can show a continuous, ongoing pattern.
  • Start with a short sentence summarizing the problem and why the community should care. Then go straight into the policies and guidelines that have been breached.
  • How did Hugh's behavior cause AFP to be subject to discretionary sanctions?
  • Don't refer to disruptive editing without explaining the specific behavioral problems. Review the signs. Focus on tendentiousness and especially rejection or ignoring of community input (inability to listen--admins love that one). For the latter, you should find lots of ammo by going through his user talk page history and reviewing the deleted posts.
  • Diffs for everything. Don't link to discussions. Admins don't want to click through to discussions.
  • You should feature WP:OWN, which is a big part of his problem. Include here his constant thanking for every single edit and talk page comment he agrees with. Maybe you haven't experienced this. But it was literally. every. single. one. until I finally recently demanded that he stop.
  • WP:BATTLEGROUND is good, definitely applicable.
  • You might find something in WP:GAME.
  • You can't simply refer to obnoxiousness in generalities and provide a diff (e.g. "A general flavor ... can be seen in the comments here"). You have to actually describe his obnoxiousness and how the policy or guidelines applies. Use quotes if necessary.
Good luck! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Springee, you might draw some inspiration from this.
Thanks for the input. The ANI is located here [[3]] Springee (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Collabera Wikipedia Page[edit]

Thanks so much for your help with the Collabera page! The original was very out of date, and all over the place - I did my best to get it up to speed. It was great to have someone with more experience to help improve on what I did. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MushuNeak (talkcontribs) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. What's your connection with LaesaMajestas? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
We know each other. MushuNeak (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
How? I hope you aren't coordinating your edits. Also, please review our guideline on conflicts of interest.--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a pretty aggressive (and personal) line of questioning; I'm sure I'm not the only one here who knows another Wikipedian. Was there something that suggests I'm not working towards Wikipedia's best interests? I'm happy to learn from your advice, if I'm not doing something right. In the meantime, I'll ask LaesaMajestas to avoid pages that I've contributed to, and do the same on my side. MushuNeak (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that I was really struck by the similarities between your user pages in combination with the overlap between your editing interests. If you're aware of our guidelines on such matters and you stick to your promise then I won't bring it up again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Understood and appreciated. I hadn't read through that guideline, so this has been helpful. MushuNeak (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, on to more pleasant things. If you're interested in further improving Collabera, I'd suggest refactoring the History and Recognition sections to be less chronological and listy. E.g. for the History section create a section called "Organization" (for leadership, headquarters, etc.) and another called "Acquisitions." For recognition, lump the related stuff together (e.g. both American Banker items, both KellyOCG items). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
And remove items for which you can't find sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The Collabera page was a disaster when I got there -- I was probably a little too ambitious to start with that as my first overhaul. Give me a few days to take your advice and see what I can do with it; formatting the recognition section will be an interesting challenge in particular -- perhaps you have an example in mind that I can model from? If not, I'll poke around and see what I can find. I definitely appreciate the help and advice. :-) MushuNeak (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing in particular to model from. Most articles are written in a prose style rather than bullet point style. No problem about the evolution of the article, everything is a work in progress. Your contributions thus far are appreciated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)